Advertisement

Public Accountability Deficits as a Policy Problem

  • Guillaume FontaineEmail author
  • Cecilia Medrano Caviedes
  • Iván Narváez
Chapter
Part of the International Series on Public Policy book series (ISPP)

Abstract

This chapter contextualizes the research problem with a state of the art of the literature on the institutional resource curse and resource nationalism. The central argument of the institutional theory of the resource curse is that a country should strengthen the public institutional system in the sense of increasing public accountability and enforcing checks and balances, so that they could prevent the political downsizes caused by external shocks of commodities prices. We contend that governments from Latin American countries that engaged in the resource nationalist turn during the past decades were actually headed in the opposite direction, which causes oil policies to hinder public accountability. This chapter proceeds with the explanation of the general aims of our research, the literature review on the resource curse thesis and a brief outlook of the methods employed.

Keywords

Policy design Resource curse Latin America Caribbean Resource nationalism Public accountability 

References

  1. Auty, R. (1993). Sustaining development in mineral economies: The resource curse thesis. (London and New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
  2. Auty, R., and Gelb, A. (2004). “Political economy of resource-abundant states”. In: Resource abundance and economic development. Edited by R. Auty. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 126–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aytaç, E., Mousseau, M., and Faruk Örsün, O. (2016). “Why some countries are immune from the resource curse: The role of economic norms”. Democratization, 23(1): 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Babb, S. (2013). “The Washington Consensus as transnational policy paradigm: Its origins, trajectory and likely successor”. Review of International Political Economy, 20(2): 268–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bannon, I., and Collier, P. (Eds.) (2003). Natural resources and violent conflict: Options and action. (Washington, DC: The World Bank).Google Scholar
  6. Beach, D., and Pedersen, R. B. (2013). Process tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines. (Ann Harbor: University of Michigan Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Béland, D., and Cox, R. (2013). “Introduction to special issue: The politics of policy paradigms”. Governance, 26(2): 193–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennett, A. (2010). “Process tracing and causal inference”. In: Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards. Edited by H. Brady and D. Collier. (Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield), pp. 207–220.Google Scholar
  9. Berman, S. (2013). “Ideational theorizing in the Social Sciences since ‘policy paradigms, social learning, and the state’”. Governance, 26(2): 217–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berrios, R., Marak, A., and Morgenstern, S. (2010). “Explaining hydrocarbon nationalization in Latin America: Economics and political ideology”. Review of International Political Economy, iFirst: 1–25.Google Scholar
  11. Bhattacharyya, S., and Hodler, R. (2011). “Do natural resource revenues hinder financial development? The role of political institutions”. Proceedings of the German Development Economic Conference, Berlin 2011, 11, 46 p.Google Scholar
  12. Blyth, M. (2013). “Paradigms and paradox: The politics of economics ideas in two moments of crisis”. Governance, 26 (2): 197–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell, J. L. (1998). “Institutional analysis and the role of ideas in political economy”. Theory and Society, 27(3): 377–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Campbell, J. L. (2002). “Ideas, politics, and public policy”. Annual Review of Sociology, 28: 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cashore, B. and Howlett, M. (2007). “Punctuating which equilibrium? Understanding thermostatic policy dynamics in Pacific Northwest Forestry”. American Journal of Political Science, 51(3): 532–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cheon A., Lackner, M., and Urpelainen, J. (2015). “Instruments of political control: National oil companies, oil prices, and Petroleum subsidies”. Comparative Political Studies, 48(5): 370–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Collier, D. (2011). “Understanding process tracing”. Political Science and Politics, 44(4): 823–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Collier, D., Brady, H., and Seawright, J. (2010). “Critiques, responses, and trade-offs: Drawing together the debate”. In: Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards. Edited by H. Brady and D. Collier. (Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield), pp. 135–160.Google Scholar
  19. Corrales, J., and Penfold, M. (2011). Dragon in the tropic: Hugo Chávez and the political economy of revolution in Venezuela. (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution).Google Scholar
  20. Daigneault, P.-M. (2014). “Reassessing the concept of policy paradigm: Aligning ontology and methodology in policy studies”. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(3): 453–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. De Castro, F., van Dijck, P., and Hogenboom, B. (2014). The extraction and conservation of natural resources in South America: Recent trends and challenges. (Amsterdam: Cuadernos del CEDLA).Google Scholar
  22. Di Bella, G., Norton, L., Ntamatungiro, J., Ogawa, S., Samake, I., and Santoro, M. (2015). “Energy subsidies in Latin America and the Caribbean: Stocktaking and policy challenges”. IMF Working Paper, 15/30, 79 p.Google Scholar
  23. Dunning, T. (2008). Crude democracy: Natural resource wealth and political regimes. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gayi, S., and Nkurunziza, J. (2016). “Trends in minerals, ores and metal prices”. In: The political economy of natural resources and development: From neoliberalism to resource nationalism. Edited by P. Haslam and P. Heidrich. (London: Routledge), pp. 35–52.Google Scholar
  25. Gelb, A., et al., (1988). Oil windfalls: Blessing or curse? (Washington, DC: Oxford University Press-World Bank).Google Scholar
  26. Ghandi, A., and Lin, C. (2013). “Oil and gas service contracts around the world: A review”. Energy Strategy Reviews, 3: 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goertz, G., Mahoney, J., (2012). A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grugel, J., and Riggirozzi, P. (2012). “Post-neoliberalism in Latin America: Rebuilding and reclaiming the state after crisis”. Development and Change, 43(1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haber, S., and Menaldo, V. (2011). “Do natural resources fuel authoritarianism? A reappraisal of the resource curse”. The American Political Science Review, 105(1): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hall, P. (1986). Governing the economy: The politics of State intervention in Britain and France. (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  31. Hall, P. (1993). “Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain”. Comparative Politics, 25(3): 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hall, P. (2013). “Brother, can you paradigm?”. Governance, 26(2): 189–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Haslam, P., and Heidrich, P. (Eds.) (2016a). The political economy of natural resources and development: From neoliberalism to resource nationalism. (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
  34. Haslam, P., and Heidrich, P. (2016b). “From neoliberalism to resource nationalism: States, firms and development”. In: The political economy of natural resources and development: From neoliberalism to resource nationalism. Edited by P. Haslam and P. Heidrich. (London: Routledge), pp. 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hodson, D., and Mabbett, D., (2009). “UK Economic policy and the global financial crisis: Paradigm lost?”. Journal of Common Market Studies, 47(5): 1041–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hogan, J., and Howlett, M. (2015). “Reflections on our understanding of policy paradigms and policy change”. In: Policy paradigms in theory and practice: Discourses, ideas and anomalies in public policy dynamics. Edited by M. Howlett, and J. Hogan. (London: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hogenboom, B. (2012). “Depoliticized and repoliticized minerals in Latin America”. Journal of Developing Societies, 28(2): 133–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hood, C. (1986). The tools of government. (London: Macmillan Press Ltd).Google Scholar
  39. Hood, C. (2007). “Intellectual obsolescence and intellectual makeovers: Reflections on the tools of government after two decades”. Governance, 20(1): 127–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hood, C., and Margetts, H. (2007). The tools of government in the digital age. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Howlett, M. (2011). Designing public policies. Principles and instruments. (Oxon: Routledge).Google Scholar
  42. Howlett, M., and Cashore, B. (2009). “The dependent variable problem in the study of policy change: Understanding policy change as a methodological problem”. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 11(1): 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Howlett, M., and Migone, A. (2011). “Charles Lindblom is alive and well and living in punctuated equilibrium land”. Policy and Society, 30: 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., and Perl, A. (2009). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). (3rd edition)Google Scholar
  45. Humphreys, M., Sachs, J., and Stiglitz, J., (Eds.) (2007a). Escaping the resource curse. (New York: Columbia University Press).Google Scholar
  46. Humphreys, M., Sachs, J., and Stiglitz, J. (2007b). “Introduction: What is the problem with natural resource wealth?”. In: Escaping the resource curse. Edited by M. Humphreys, J.D. Sachs, and J. Stiglitz. (New York: Columbia University Press), pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
  47. Karl, T. L. (1997). The Paradow of plenty: Oil booms and petro-states. Berkeley: UCA Press, 380 p.Google Scholar
  48. Karl, T. L. (2005). “Understanding the resource curse”. In: Covering oil: A reporter’s guide to energy and development. (New York: Open Society Institute), pp. 21–30.Google Scholar
  49. Karl, T. L. (2007). “Ensuring fairness: The case of a transparent fiscal social contract”. In: Escaping the resource curse. Edited by M. Humphreys, J. Sachs, and J. Stiglitz. (New York: Columbia University Press), pp. 256–285.Google Scholar
  50. Keman, H. (2014). “Comparative research methods”. In: Comparative politics. Edited by D. Caramani. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 47–59.Google Scholar
  51. Kern, F., and Kuzemko, C. (2014). “Measuring and explaining policy paradigm change: The case of UK energy policy”. Policy And Politics, 42(4): 513–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Koivumaeki, R. I. (2015). “Evading the constraints of globalization: Oil and gas nationalization in Venezuela and Bolivia”. Comparative Politics, Oct. 2015: 107–125.Google Scholar
  53. Kolstad, I., Wiig, A., and Williams, A. (2009). “Mission improbable: Does petroleum-related aid address the resource curse?”. Energy Policy, 37: 954–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kuhn, T. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions: 50th anniversary edition. (Chicago: Chicago University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mackie, J. L. (1965). “Causes and conditions”. American Philosophical Quarterly, 2(4): 245–264.Google Scholar
  56. Mahdavi, P. (2014). “Why do leaders nationalize the oil industry? The politics of resource expropriation”. Energy Policy, 75: 228–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mill, J. S. (1843). A system of logic, ratiocinative and inductive: Being a connected view of the principles of evidence and the methods of scientific investigation, Volume 1. (London: Harrison & Co Printers).Google Scholar
  58. NRGI (Natural Resource Governance Institute) (2017). The 2017 resource governance index. http://www.resourcegovernance.org
  59. O’Donnell, G. (1999). “Horizontal accountability in new democracies”. In: The self restraining State: Power and accountability in new democracies. Edited by A. Schedler, L. Diamond, and M. F. Plattner. (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers), pp. 29–51.Google Scholar
  60. Omgba, L. (2015). “Why do some oil-producing countries succeed in democracy while others fail?”. World Development, 76: 180–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Peruzzotti, E., and Smulovitz, C. (2002). “Accountability social: la otra cara del control”. In: Controlando la política. Ciudadanos y medios en las nuevas democracias latinoamericanas. Edited by E. Peruzzotti and C. Smulovitz. (Buenos Aires: EditorialTemas), pp. 23–52.Google Scholar
  62. Peters, B. G. (2013). Strategies for comparative research in political science. (London: Palgrave Macmillan).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Philip, G. (1989). Oil and politics in Latin America: Nationalist movements and state companies. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  64. Pierre, J., Peters, B. G. (2000). Governance, politics and the state. (London: Macmillan Press).Google Scholar
  65. Rodríguez, J., Morales, J., and Monaldi, F. (2012). “Direct distribution of oil revenues in Venezuela: A viable alternative?”. Working Paper 306, Center for Global Development, 38 p.Google Scholar
  66. Ross, M. (2001). “Does oil hinder democracy?”. World Politics, 53: 325–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ross, M. (2003). “The natural resource curse: How health can make you poor”. In: Natural resources and violent conflict: Options and action. Edited by I. Bannon and P. Collier (Washington, DC: The World Bank), pp. 17–42.Google Scholar
  68. Ross, M. (2012). The oil curse: How petroleum wealth shapes the development of nations. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rosser, A. (2006). “The political economy of the resource curse: A literature survey”. Working Paper 268, Institute of Development, 36 p.Google Scholar
  70. Sachs, J. (2007). “How to handle the macroeconomics of oil wealth?”. In: Escaping the resource curse. Edited by M. Humphreys, J.D. Sachs, and J. Stiglitz. (New York: Columbia University Press), pp. 173–193.Google Scholar
  71. Segal, P. (2012). “How to spend it: Resource wealth and the distribution of resource rents”. Energy Policy, 51: 340–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Smith, A., (2010). Nationalism. (Cambridge: Polity Press). (2nd edition)Google Scholar
  73. Stevens, P., and Dietsche, E. (2008). “Resource curse: An analysis of the causes, experiences and possible ways forward”. Energy Policy, 36: 56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stiglitz, J. (2007). “What is the role of the state?”. In: Escaping the resource curse. Edited by M. Humphreys, J.D. Sachs, and J.E. Stiglitz. (New York: Columbia University Press), pp. 23–52.Google Scholar
  75. Surel, Y. (1997). “Quand la politique change les politiques. La loi Lang du 10 août 1981 et les politiques du livre”. Revue Française de Science Politique, 47 (2): 147–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Timmerman, K. (2012). “Understanding the resource curse: Why some get more sick than others”. Lehigh Review, 20: 33–43.Google Scholar
  77. Veltmeyer, H. (2012). “The natural resource dynamics of postneoliberalism in Latin America: New developmentalism or extractivist imperialism?” Studies in Political Economy, 90: 57–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Vera, L. (2015). “Venezuela 1999–2014: Macro-policy, oil governance and economic performance”. Comparative Economic Studies, 57: 539–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Vivoda, V. (2009). “Resource nationalism, bargaining and international oil companies: Challenges and change in the new millennium”. New Political Economy, Dic. 2009, 19 p.Google Scholar
  80. Vivoda, V. (2016). “Rise of state-firm bargaining in the 2000s”. In: The political economy of natural resources and development: From neoliberalism to resource nationalism. Edited by Haslam P. and Heidrich, P. (London: Routledge), pp. 53–69.Google Scholar
  81. Weijemars, R. (2015). “Natural resource wealth optimization: A review of fiscal regimes and equitable agreements for petroleum and mineral extraction projects”. Natural Resource Research, 24(4): 385–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Weitzman, H. (2013). “Resource nationalism: Beyond ideology”. Americas Quarterly, 1(3): 1–11.Google Scholar
  83. Wilder, M., and Howlett, M. (2015). “Paradigm construction and the politics of policy anomalies”. In: Policy paradigms in theory and practice: Discourses, ideas and anomalies in public policy dynamics. Edited by M. Howlett and J. Hogan. (London: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guillaume Fontaine
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cecilia Medrano Caviedes
    • 2
  • Iván Narváez
    • 1
  1. 1.Latin American Faculty for Social SciencesQuitoEcuador
  2. 2.Center for International StudiesParisFrance

Personalised recommendations